Video: why the New Deal was a failure

December 13, 2011

Obama’s first term (1) saw a full-throated return to Keynesian economics — massive increases in government spending, debt, and (if they had gotten their way) taxes to try to stimulate the economy. As we all know, it failed miserably.

For the 2012 election, Obama has doubled-down on the Keynesianism to openly advocate policies of higher taxation, more regulation, more government-directed redistribution of income, and, yes, even more flushing tax money down the toilet stimulus spending. Obama and his people claim that this worked before under FDR, so we should do it again.

Wrong. The history of the New Deal (and its predecessor under Hoover) is almost the opposite of what we’ve been taught in school. The biggest misrepresentation of all is that it worked.

It didn’t. The New Deal was a failure that only made the misery worse, as this video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity argues:

The real lesson we should take from the economic policies of the Hoover and FDR administrations is that big-government, statist interventions don’t work. Instead, they exacerbate the problem by hindering the self-healing properties of a free market.

In 2012, we have a choice between a party that advocates economic policies that are an empirical failure — the Democrats and the their Hoover/FDR interventionism– and one (2) offering those shown to be an empirical success, the policies of Ronald Reagan and, yes, Warren Harding.

For most voters (3), once armed with the facts, the choice becomes clear and easy.

RELATED: For more on the truth about Hoover, FDR and the New Deal, let me recommend the following:

  • Ohanian and Cole, “New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis” (Journal of Political Economy, 2004) While behind online subscriber walls, you should be able to find it at any university library.
  • Amity Shlaes, The Forgotten Man
  • Jim Powell, FDR’s Folly

Footnotes:
(1) And, to be fair, the last year of Bush’s second term.
(2) Sure, the Republicans have been far from perfect, and the eventual nominee himself may be tempted by big-government “solutions,” but they’re still a far sight better than the (Social) Demcorats.
(3) Other than a certain core that, for whatever reason, prefers to cling bitterly to their cherished myths and bad ideas and be infantilized wards of the state.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Seven reasons why tax increases are not needed

May 4, 2011

The Center For Freedom and Prosperity has put out another of it’s “Econ 101″ videos, which cover various topics explaining why limited government, low tax, and controlled spending regimes work better than… Well, what we have now.

This video, narrated by Piyali Bhattacharya of Young Americans for Liberty, gives seven reasons why increasing taxes is a bad idea:

  1. Tax increases are not needed;
  2. Tax increases encourage more spending;
  3. Tax increases harm economic performance;
  4. Tax increases foment social discord;
  5. Tax increases almost never raise as much revenue as projected;
  6. Tax increases encourage more loopholes; and,
  7. Tax increases undermine competitiveness.

And here’s Piyali:

We should keep these in mind as the budget debates in Congress go forward.

via Dan Mitchell at Big Government, where he gives links to related videos you may be interested in.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Four reasons why big government is bad government

February 8, 2011

Via Dan Mitchell, here’s another video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. This one explains why the growth of government is harmful to a nation’s prosperity:

Check out Mitchell’s post for some related interesting videos.

BTW: A message was making its way around Twitter last night; by “retweeting” it, one asks Speaker Boehner to post a live debt clock (like this one) in the House chamber. I like it.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Why a flat tax is a good idea

January 31, 2011

I believe I’ve posted this before, but, since tax season is fast approaching with all its wrangling over this rule and that deduction, I thought it worthwhile to offer again. In it, the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell explains how a flat tax would work and why it would be better for the country than the current Byzantine system we have:

And, speaking of those Mitchell mentions who benefit from the current tax code, I’m sure the tax-prep industry would just hate this.

via International Liberty

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Want to save Social Security? Privatize it.

January 16, 2011

Everyone who hasn’t been hiding under a rock knows that the two main pillars of our social welfare system, Medicare and Social Security, are in big trouble and threaten to wreck the nation’s finances. With regard to Social Security, Dan Mitchell suggests the way to save the program is to let everyone have private accounts:

Mitchell mentions several countries that have had success privatizing their social pension system. Chile is just one example of a country where privatization has worked wonders. Isn’t it time we took a hard look at doing the same thing, instead of just demagoguing the issue?

RELATED: Jimmy Bise at The Sundries Shack says “We’ll fix Social Security Over Their Dead Bodies.” Take no prisoners.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Why Keynesian economics is wrong

November 30, 2010

Progressive economics (and, sadly, the economics of some otherwise sensible Republicans) is based on the idea that, in an economic downturn, one relies on government spending to increase domestic consumption in order to stimulate the economy. Sadly, as the history of the 1930s, 1970s and, now, the early 21st century shows, that really doesn’t work. In this video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, the AEI’s Hiwa Alaghebandian explains how Keynesian economics, and thus the entire economic policy of the Obama administration, has it all backwards:

As her former internship supervisor, Dan Mitchell, writes:

The main insight of the mini-documentary is that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) only measures how national output is allocated between consumption, investment, and government. That’s useful information in many ways, but if we want more output, we should focus on Gross Domestic Income (GDI), which measures how national income is earned.

Focusing on GDI hopefully would lead lawmakers to consider ways of boosting employee compensation, corporate profits, small business income, and other components of national income. Focusing on GDP, by contrast, is misguided since any effort to boost consumption generally leads to less investment. This is why Keynesian policies only redistribute national income, but don’t boost overall output.

The analysis in this video also helps explain why Obama’s so-called stimulus was a flop. The White House genuinely seemed to think a bigger burden of government spending was going to create jobs, but the real-world numbers show higher joblessness.

The basic idea is that increased income leads to increased consumption, not the other way around. One would think this would be common sense, but that apparently assumes a level of economic literacy all too uncommon amongst our policy-makers.

LINKS: MEP Daniel Hannan sums it up in 11 words.

Via International Liberty

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Indexing the capital gains tax

September 21, 2010

Sounds like a snoozer of a topic, right?

Hey, wake up! It’s your money we’re talking about here!

That’s right. If you’re an investor (and everyone should be in some form, even in this lousy economic climate), then you’re being ripped off by the capital gains tax. Not only is it a form of double taxation that should be eliminated, but, even at the current relatively low rates, you still lose because of inflation. In fact, as this Center for Freedom and Prosperity video demonstrates, it is quite possible to pay taxes on a “gain” that is actually a loss:

It’s like getting mugged and then being forced to pay for the mugger’s cab fare. Some fun, eh?

More seriously, this kind of taxation eventually discourages investment, which hampers economic growth and job creation, something we just don’t need.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,780 other followers